Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-12-17

lie affairs and disburse public funds. I'm
der such ruling the property and liberty
of no man would be safe, and supervisory
boards and election officers would have the
right to "close down" an election at their
own sweet will.
1t ought to be wholly unnecessary to call
attention to the fact that the Supreme
Court has decided that every requirement
of the law must be complied with to make
an election valid. In precisely similar
case that Court decided the question
which is no question in fact-and held that
where polls were not opened until five
hours after the hour the law prescribes, 10
lawful election was held. The only differ
ence between that case and the present is
that the Sacramento polls were closed four
hours, when they should have been open,
while in the Santa Clara case they were
closed five hours of the time when they
should have been open.
But the gentleman whom the people
have chosen in Sacramento to advise their
officials of the law says the objection
raised to the election is but "techni-
cality." photographers define "techni-
cality" to be that which is technical or
peculiar to any trade, profession, sect or
the like Certainly, Mr.. Attorney Hart
does not mean it in that sense it must be,
therefore, that he employees it in the popu-
lar sense in which it is understood, that is.
a strict observance, but not an absolutely
essential one; clinging to the letter
rather than the spirit of the law. Yet
common ordinary sense, which has not
been trained in the technicals of the pro-
fession of the law, advises the layman that
when the law fixes hours within which he
may express his will by his ballot, no
legal process, deprive him of that right,
and not invade and offend principle
sacred to freemen. There is an old maxim
of the law, that it does not take note of
minutes, but this is case of hours; of
more than third Of our daily waking
hours; of large portion of day. 1t is
case of violation of law expressly
passed that broader opportunity might be
afforded voters to cast their ballots. 1t
was passed in response to a popular de-
mand, and was given all the publicity
that is usual. The City Attorney ought
to have known it, as he is presumed to
keep posted upon statutes affecting public
rights, and he should have advised the
Trustees that their direction to the election
officers was error. Had he volunteered in
this instance, it would not have been con-
sidered impertinence.
The suggestion is ventured that City
Attorney Hart cannot find well-read,
thinking, reasoning lawyer in the State
who viii concur in his opinion. If he
does not know that he advised the Trus-
tees against the law and in avoidance of
it, then it is made painfully clear that the
ptOple leeu Il ptlttT lHIOIIueu dllu DelteT
reasoning legal adviser If he does know
better; if he is informed as to the law but
advised the Trustees as he did for policy
sake, then he is an unsafe adviser, since it
is his duty not to define policies, but to in
struct the Board upon the law. In
either view, the City Attorney has
not added by his "opinion," to the
immensely of the respect his high Office as
counselor for municipality is supposed
to inspire.
There is enough in the dangerous pre-
cedent Mr. Hart has advised the Trustees
to make, to render it worth while to give
the City Attorney lesson in law from the
bench of Court, and it is to be hoped
some citizen will feel enough interest in
even-handed justice TO object to some one
of the elected officers being installed, and
challenge his claim in way TO bring the
matter before the Superior Court, that the
law in the matter may be furnished to the
City Attorney at second-hand-as it is un.
likely that he will accept it from laymer
to whom reason and the plain language o.
the Supreme Court are sufficient.